The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1887-10-08
DAVIS ANSWER REAGAN.
His Silence has Been Mlsconstrued.
Hence he Writes an Able Reply to
Roagan's Letter and Reviews
the Inconsistency of the
LaIter,s Position.
BEAuvo1R MISS, Sept. 20, 1887.

the Inconsistency of h
Latter's Position.
BEAUvoIR MISS, Sept. 20, 1887.
To the Hon. John H. Reagan-My
Dear Friend: If drunken
ness be the cause of disorder and crime
why not pronounce drunkenness itsel
to be a crime, and attach to it proper
and adequate penalties? Now, intoxi
eating liquor has become to you the
evil, all possible use of which must be
an abuse, and, therefore, Legislation
must not be directed to its control, bul
to its determination. With an incon'
sistency, surprising IN a mind SO lOgi
Cal as yours, exception is made of use
for sacramento purposes. Can it be
possible that an unmitigated evil car
be requisite tor the performance OF 8
holy office? Is it not plain that your
theory is, in practice, at last reduced
to legislatiDg against use and moi
abuse? Straining my assertion that il
was the duty of government to protect
and not to impair ~inalienable rights OF
the individual, it has been treated IS i
1t had been q denial of all power to
punish crime, without which govern
ment could not protect personal rights.
In your zeal to support the doctrine
of prohibition you cite the law against
carrying concealed weapons, but here
again the answer is patent. The law
does moi invade the right to keep and
bear arms for private and public de-
tense, but the abuse Of that right by
such practices as befit the assassin, the
burglar, the invader of the rights OF
others. To carry out your theory to
it's logical conclusions, as deadly
weapons may lead to crime, the sale,
Importation and manufacture of fire.
arms and cutlery should be prohibited,
and thus wholly eXtirpate the evil
which would follow abuse by their
pOssessOr.
Among the instances you cite Of the
abridgment of personal liberty is the
prohibition of the first parents to eat
the fruit of the tree of life, but the
facts of the case seem hardly to sustain
your theory, as the Creator did not
destroy the tree so as to make it 1m-
possible that our first parents should
eat of the fruit, but he rather left them
as free agents to their moral RESPONSE
bility, with a penalty attached to the
violation of his command. They had
entire personal liberty and were left to
choose between virtuous obedience ami
simple violation OF the law given for
their government. They chose to
offend and suffered the penalty. You
further state that the decalogue
cartridges personal liberty in nearly
every commandment" but surely you
do not consider theft, murder and the
bearing false witness as. part OF per-
sonal liberty the last named has be-
come very common, buthad not, l
supposed, yet reached the magnitude
OF a personal right.
Do lawsfor the punishment of crime
abridge personal liberty, or rather are
they not guardians of the natural rights
wulcn in a slate of society might be
violated by the evil disposed? 1t
strikes me as a misuse of terms to de-
scribe the commission of crime as the
exercise of personal liberty. The
natural rights OF man are those which
belong to the social condition, that
being his natural state OF existence,
and those are termed .'inalienable" the
exercise of ahich socieix Ina no ri2ht
to obstruct.
In your. letter, and in the voluminous
commentaries it has received, the
question at issue is presented as though
the amendment" had been only about
whisky traffic and the keeping OF
saloons. For the instruction of others
I will quo e the amendment, that il
NAV be seen whether it was confined tc
whisky traffic and saloons, the alleged
cause of the sufferingy crimes and dis
i, orders complained of.
The proposed amendment to thu
constitution of Texas reads as follows
.sThe manufacture, sale and exchang,
OF intoxicating liquors, except TO
medicinal, mechanical, sacramental an
scientific purposes, is hereby prohibited
in the state of Texas. The legislator
shall, at the first session held after tn
abortion of the amendment, enac
necessary laws to put this provisioI
into effect"
This was the measure submitted t
the voters OF Texas and rejected b
th.m on August 4, 1887.
If the amendment had been adopted
What, it may be asked, would the win
growers have done with their surplu
grapes, or the fruit growers with the
peaches, apples and pears, or the farn
ers with their surplus grain? Wi
I thew be fed to the hogs? A law mo-
ancient and of higher authority thu
the Maine liquor law forbids b use
swine's flesh, and having entered {
the course OF sumptuary Legislation
WHY may not the prohibition OF t
inspired law-giver be revivedI
The result of the recent election
your state may be sufficient guarant
against surrender of their inalienat
rights and privileges by the ibert
loving people OF Texas. Is there
possibility that an ''ism" which /
shown such expansive capacity "
seek to embOdy itself in federal leg
lation? You who have borne all he
orable part in Two wars for the III
pendence of Texas may have
another occasion to defend her rig
as a state. If you should insist thai
powers. are reserved which had
been delegated, and that sumptu'
legislation would be usurpation and
violation of personal liberty, might
your prohibition doctrine come b'
to plague your If overpowered
numbers, what would be the cundit
of the minority section?
The prohibition law and pc
would involve domiclliary Wis
1t requires no prophet to fore
what would sbe the condition of
people-what would be the moral
cadeace resulting from the domina'
of spSes, informers and foreign otHci
Nav God in His mercy shield III +
all the consequent evils OF such a p
CIV to paint which would req
co1ors even deeper than those
have employed.
A gratifying result of the Texas
ton. as reported to me-, was that
counties which had favored local
ton did, as a rule, vote against
amendment. 1t was gratifying
two reasons, because it evinced a
discrimination between local OF
and state prohibition aud that it
not the drunksrds and traders IN wi
who constituted the opposition t.
amendment.
There is another marked featu
which objection might well be ma
the manner in which the question
presented. An amendment migl
ad 'pted by a mdority, but if ex
ence should prove it to be inju
rather than benetiliai, a minority
legislature could dsny to the .peopl
right to reconsiderand repeal it.
broad distinction between a
tory enactment AM a constitu;
amendment might we'll have
powerful influence OF the decisl